rockfist wrote:The fact of the matter is, if we conservatives, blame the media, and blame the stupidity of the opposition, instead of trully looking at our own policies -we will doom ourselves to defeat again. I think its clear that our conservative social policies are unpopular with a good portion of the electorate (I'll never understand why abortion is such a big issue for a lot of voters, but what is important is that it is). I think we should give up on things like that so we can enact the fiscally conservative policies that will help our country. Most people want low taxes and low spending. Most women don't want to be told what to do with their bodies - and for many of them - that trumps low taxes. We should adjust accordingly.

Valuing life should never be "adjusted".

So, how much will the Republican party have to implode before the social issues conflict is resolved?

This is directed at both of you as well as other (economic or social) conservatives on the site.

Chariot of Fire wrote:As for GreecePwns.....yeah, what? A massive debt. Get a job you slacker.

Viceroy wrote:[The Biblical creation story] was written in a time when there was no way to confirm this fact and is in fact a statement of the facts.

rockfist wrote:The fact of the matter is, if we conservatives, blame the media, and blame the stupidity of the opposition, instead of trully looking at our own policies -we will doom ourselves to defeat again. I think its clear that our conservative social policies are unpopular with a good portion of the electorate (I'll never understand why abortion is such a big issue for a lot of voters, but what is important is that it is). I think we should give up on things like that so we can enact the fiscally conservative policies that will help our country. Most people want low taxes and low spending. Most women don't want to be told what to do with their bodies - and for many of them - that trumps low taxes. We should adjust accordingly.

Valuing life should never be "adjusted".

So, how much will the Republican party have to implode before the social issues conflict is resolved?

This is directed at both of you as well as other (economic or social) conservatives on the site.

If in 2016 the Republicans put up Marco Rubio and he runs a similar campaign to Romney (i.e. emphasizing fiscal issues, not social ones), and the Republicans lose because of social issues (e.g. abortion and gay marriage), the Republican party will implode. I think you'll get either a more socially liberal Republican Party or the Republican Party will split and you'll get a socially liberal third party (NOT Libertarians... something else).

rockfist wrote:The fact of the matter is, if we conservatives, blame the media, and blame the stupidity of the opposition, instead of trully looking at our own policies -we will doom ourselves to defeat again. I think its clear that our conservative social policies are unpopular with a good portion of the electorate (I'll never understand why abortion is such a big issue for a lot of voters, but what is important is that it is). I think we should give up on things like that so we can enact the fiscally conservative policies that will help our country. Most people want low taxes and low spending. Most women don't want to be told what to do with their bodies - and for many of them - that trumps low taxes. We should adjust accordingly.

Valuing life should never be "adjusted".

So we should just keep losing forever?

I value economics more than social issues. This is my opinion. Its not that I am pro-choice per se - its just a question of what I value more. If you want to value life more - then make your case and get the majority of people to support it or be okay with it - otherwise its a loser and I won't stand for it in my party - because if their is one thing I hate - its a loser.

rockfist wrote:The fact of the matter is, if we conservatives, blame the media, and blame the stupidity of the opposition, instead of trully looking at our own policies -we will doom ourselves to defeat again. I think its clear that our conservative social policies are unpopular with a good portion of the electorate (I'll never understand why abortion is such a big issue for a lot of voters, but what is important is that it is). I think we should give up on things like that so we can enact the fiscally conservative policies that will help our country. Most people want low taxes and low spending. Most women don't want to be told what to do with their bodies - and for many of them - that trumps low taxes. We should adjust accordingly.

Valuing life should never be "adjusted".

So we should just keep losing forever?

I value economics more than social issues. This is my opinion. Its not that I am pro-choice per se - its just a question of what I value more. If you want to value life more - then make your case and get the majority of people to support it or be okay with it - otherwise its a loser and I won't stand for it in my party - because if their is one thing I hate - its a loser.

I definitely more socially liberal than socially conservative (so I am sort of outside of your discussion here), but abortion is always an issue with which I've struggled personally. It is difficult for me to support the right to choose, since I know personally I would rarely, if ever, counsel someone to choose this option. Moreover, I don't usually support capital punishment or torture, or anything else that I feel impacts life like that. My struggle regarding life revolves around... I don't think I should be the one determining to end or dramatically another's life. It is too big of a decision which makes me feel uncomfortable. In the end though, I usually support the right choose because I feel I can't make that decision for someone else. I am most always a type of person that leave's someone's personal choices, for better or worse, up to the individual.

rockfist wrote:The fact of the matter is, if we conservatives, blame the media, and blame the stupidity of the opposition, instead of trully looking at our own policies -we will doom ourselves to defeat again. I think its clear that our conservative social policies are unpopular with a good portion of the electorate (I'll never understand why abortion is such a big issue for a lot of voters, but what is important is that it is). I think we should give up on things like that so we can enact the fiscally conservative policies that will help our country. Most people want low taxes and low spending. Most women don't want to be told what to do with their bodies - and for many of them - that trumps low taxes. We should adjust accordingly.

Valuing life should never be "adjusted".

So we should just keep losing forever?

I value economics more than social issues. This is my opinion. Its not that I am pro-choice per se - its just a question of what I value more. If you want to value life more - then make your case and get the majority of people to support it or be okay with it - otherwise its a loser and I won't stand for it in my party - because if their is one thing I hate - its a loser.

If there was a political party that supported allowing adults to kill their senile parents once they became a burden to the adult-child caretaker, would that party ever get any support? Yet that's exactly what we have, and even worse, when the Democrat party supports killing unborn children simply because they will be a burden once they are born. Taking the life of an innocent person should never be a matter of taking political sides. I can't just suddenly change my position and say "It's ok to kill your unborn child simply because it will be an inconvenience to your life."

Now just because that view should never be changed doesn't mean it has to be the main issue in an election cycle. If we don't restore fiscal sanity (although we need to then reach fiscal responsibility), then there won't be any institutions available to protect innocent people of any age.

Night Strike wrote:If there was a political party that supported allowing adults to kill their senile parents once they became a burden to the adult-child caretaker, would that party ever get any support? Yet that's exactly what we have, and even worse, when the Democrat party supports killing unborn children simply because they will be a burden once they are born. Taking the life of an innocent person should never be a matter of taking political sides. I can't just suddenly change my position and say "It's ok to kill your unborn child simply because it will be an inconvenience to your life."

These are the same people who would fight tooth and nail to protect the life of a fetus, and then go home and eat a nice steak dinner. Their hypocrisy is incredible.

Night Strike wrote:If there was a political party that supported allowing adults to kill their senile parents once they became a burden to the adult-child caretaker, would that party ever get any support? Yet that's exactly what we have, and even worse, when the Democrat party supports killing unborn children simply because they will be a burden once they are born. Taking the life of an innocent person should never be a matter of taking political sides. I can't just suddenly change my position and say "It's ok to kill your unborn child simply because it will be an inconvenience to your life."

These are the same people who would fight tooth and nail to protect the life of a fetus, and then go home and eat a nice steak dinner. Their hypocrisy is incredible.

Or fight tooth and nail to protect the life of the fetus, but when the mother needs government assistance to support her child refuse to give it.

Night Strike wrote:If there was a political party that supported allowing adults to kill their senile parents once they became a burden to the adult-child caretaker, would that party ever get any support? Yet that's exactly what we have, and even worse, when the Democrat party supports killing unborn children simply because they will be a burden once they are born. Taking the life of an innocent person should never be a matter of taking political sides. I can't just suddenly change my position and say "It's ok to kill your unborn child simply because it will be an inconvenience to your life."

These are the same people who would fight tooth and nail to protect the life of a fetus, and then go home and eat a nice steak dinner. Their hypocrisy is incredible.

That's the hypocrisy you're going with? You're likening a cow to a human fetus? If you are the progressive future, I shudder.

There are so many better ones. Like...

These are the same people who would fight tooth and nail to protect the life of a fetus, and then also fight tooth and nail in favor of the death penalty.

Night Strike wrote:If there was a political party that supported allowing adults to kill their senile parents once they became a burden to the adult-child caretaker, would that party ever get any support? Yet that's exactly what we have, and even worse, when the Democrat party supports killing unborn children simply because they will be a burden once they are born. Taking the life of an innocent person should never be a matter of taking political sides. I can't just suddenly change my position and say "It's ok to kill your unborn child simply because it will be an inconvenience to your life."

These are the same people who would fight tooth and nail to protect the life of a fetus, and then go home and eat a nice steak dinner. Their hypocrisy is incredible.

That's the hypocrisy you're going with? You're likening a cow to a human fetus? If you are the progressive future, I shudder.

There are so many better ones. Like...

These are the same people who would fight tooth and nail to protect the life of a fetus, and then also fight tooth and nail in favor of the death penalty.

That's not hypocritical. Such people are only interested in the absolute preservation of innocent life. In their view, those who commit crimes such as murder give up their right to life. A fetus has committed no such act, so its right to life can never be violated (in their view).

And yes, that's the hypocrisy I'm going with. I'm not likening a cow to a human fetus; I'm suggesting that an adult cow is actually more valuable than a human fetus, in the sense that it is more intelligent.

Metsfanmax wrote:And yes, that's the hypocrisy I'm going with. I'm not likening a cow to a human fetus; I'm suggesting that an adult cow is actually more valuable than a human fetus, in the sense that it is more intelligent.

The value of a life is based on its intelligence? I have a mentally handicapped uncle so I find that assumption very concerning...and no, I'm not talking about Uncle Saxi lol

Metsfanmax wrote:And yes, that's the hypocrisy I'm going with. I'm not likening a cow to a human fetus; I'm suggesting that an adult cow is actually more valuable than a human fetus, in the sense that it is more intelligent.

The value of a life is based on its intelligence? I have a mentally handicapped uncle so I find that assumption very concerning...and no, I'm not talking about Uncle Saxi lol

He may have meant intelligence as one of many criteria when it comes to value. One could also argue the potentia as a value---the old acorn argument. And probably any number of other items.

Any time value comes into discussion, it is often difficult to define that value absolutely, since by our very nature, we all have different ideas regarding what is personally valuable and what is globally valuable.

Metsfanmax wrote:And yes, that's the hypocrisy I'm going with. I'm not likening a cow to a human fetus; I'm suggesting that an adult cow is actually more valuable than a human fetus, in the sense that it is more intelligent.

The value of a life is based on its intelligence? I have a mentally handicapped uncle so I find that assumption very concerning...and no, I'm not talking about Uncle Saxi lol

You are thinking about intelligence too narrowly. When questioning whether the taking of a life can be justified, one needs some metric to judge the value of that life. If you are particularly religious, your religion might tell you that human life is intrinsically more valuable than non-human animal life. Suppose we neglect that. Then how can one compare the value of human life with, say, bovine life? There is no clear cut distinction because all mammals live on a sort of continuum of intelligence and other relevant parameters. Also, humans clearly live on their own continuum (some humans are more intelligent than others) so there's no cutoff between humans and other intelligent, conscious mammals or birds that is not arbitrary.

So, a better way to think about it is a concept that I'll borrow from Peter Singer, the idea of replaceability: in general, one should only be relatively unconcerned about the taking of lives that are replaceable (that is, the life you take could be just as easily replaced by another member of the species). Intelligence is one obvious way to clarify which species are replaceable and which are not; consciousness is another. An adult pig, for something, is actually a rather intelligent animal. It is most likely not the case that you could kill an adult pig and replace it with another one, and the net result would be the same. The adult pig has some set of memories and experiences that collectively form its identity, as it were, and it demonstrates the desire to continue staying alive (this last claim is a subtle point, which we can get into further if people want; for now, take it as a given). Therefore one ought not just arbitrarily take its life; there needs to be a good reason for it, just as there needs to be a good reason why you would kill an innocent human. On the other hand, a human fetus has no memories or experiences that define its existence, and has no desire to continue living that you are ending when you terminate its life. So for ethical purposes, a fetus is replaceable. There's a huge gaping hole in this argument as I've presented it, which is that it is clearly not replaceable when you consider the effect it has on other people (i.e the parents), but this can be addressed to, if people are sufficiently interested.

Ignore what TGD says; those who believe in rights for non-human animals are an important section of the progressive movement, and the ideas I'm expressing here are relatively commonly accepted in that community.

Metsfanmax wrote:Ignore what TGD says; those who believe in rights for non-human animals are an important section of the progressive movement, and the ideas I'm expressing here are relatively commonly accepted in that community.

Are you really one of those people who believe such crazy ideas? It's insane that people would give more rights to animals than protect those of their fellow humans.

Metsfanmax wrote:And yes, that's the hypocrisy I'm going with. I'm not likening a cow to a human fetus; I'm suggesting that an adult cow is actually more valuable than a human fetus, in the sense that it is more intelligent.

The value of a life is based on its intelligence? I have a mentally handicapped uncle so I find that assumption very concerning...and no, I'm not talking about Uncle Saxi lol

You are thinking about intelligence too narrowly. When questioning whether the taking of a life can be justified, one needs some metric to judge the value of that life. If you are particularly religious, your religion might tell you that human life is intrinsically more valuable than non-human animal life. Suppose we neglect that. Then how can one compare the value of human life with, say, bovine life? There is no clear cut distinction because all mammals live on a sort of continuum of intelligence and other relevant parameters. Also, humans clearly live on their own continuum (some humans are more intelligent than others) so there's no cutoff between humans and other intelligent, conscious mammals or birds that is not arbitrary.

So, a better way to think about it is a concept that I'll borrow from Peter Singer, the idea of replaceability: in general, one should only be relatively unconcerned about the taking of lives that are replaceable (that is, the life you take could be just as easily replaced by another member of the species). Intelligence is one obvious way to clarify which species are replaceable and which are not; consciousness is another. An adult pig, for something, is actually a rather intelligent animal. It is most likely not the case that you could kill an adult pig and replace it with another one, and the net result would be the same. The adult pig has some set of memories and experiences that collectively form its identity, as it were, and it demonstrates the desire to continue staying alive (this last claim is a subtle point, which we can get into further if people want; for now, take it as a given). Therefore one ought not just arbitrarily take its life; there needs to be a good reason for it, just as there needs to be a good reason why you would kill an innocent human. On the other hand, a human fetus has no memories or experiences that define its existence, and has no desire to continue living that you are ending when you terminate its life. So for ethical purposes, a fetus is replaceable. There's a huge gaping hole in this argument as I've presented it, which is that it is clearly not replaceable when you consider the effect it has on other people (i.e the parents), but this can be addressed to, if people are sufficiently interested.

Ignore what TGD says; those who believe in rights for non-human animals are an important section of the progressive movement, and the ideas I'm expressing here are relatively commonly accepted in that community.

[thegreekdog rubs his hands together]

Excellent. Let's look at the issue of abortion within the context of the Constitution, upon which the Roe v. Wade decision was made. This is a two step process:

Step One: Is abortion a right guaranteed under a provision of the Constitution?

The US Supreme Court held that abortion is a right under the fourteenth amendment's right to privacy. Therefore, the government needs a compelling state interest in order to prevent that right.

Step Two: If abortion is a right guaranteed under the Constitution, what are the compelling state interests (the government needs a compelling interest to do away with a right guaranteed under the Constitution) in prohibiting said right?

The US Supreme Court indicated that the compelling state interest is the health of the fetus. In other words, the state has a valid and compelling state interest in protecting the fetus... the unborn child... the thing that is less intelligent than an adult cow. The Supreme Court decided that the state has a compelling state interest in protecting the fetus at the time of viability. Thus, a woman had the right to have an abortion until the fetus is viable, but not after the fetus is viable. Why did the Supreme Court decide that the time of viability was where the state interest overruled a woman's right to privacy? The Court noted that viability occurs generally at seven months, but may occur as early as 24 weeks. From the Court itself: "With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the "compeling" point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications."

The Supreme Court did not compare the intelligence of a fetus to the intelligence of an adult in making their determination. The Supreme Court did not determine that a woman could have an abortion or kill her child until the child had the ability to live on its own (if our new health insurance law is to be believed - that age is 25). So, while Metsfanmax may have a better way to think about taking a life (replacability), it is not the Supreme Court's way of thinking about taking a life. The Supreme Court determined that medicine determines when a person is alive (i.e. viability). So, if, as BBS one suggested in another thread, if viability occurs as early as potentially one month gestation period, does the government now have a compelling state interest? Based on a plain reading of the Roe v. Wade case, I think the answer is yes.

Abortion is a hot button issue 30+ years after Roe v. Wade because it is has political clout. There really is no other reason. The Repocrats can scare their constituencies with "more abortions" or "no abortions" and get them out to vote. Metsfanmax is merely regurgitating the Democrat side of that coin. Abortions are legal in most states only because of the Roe v. Wade decision, which determined that the right to privacy overrode a compelling state interest only up until viability. To suggest there are any other reasons why abortion is legal in most states is absurd. Abortions are not legal because the fetus is not intelligent or because the fetus cannot live on its own.

Metsfanmax wrote:Ignore what TGD says; those who believe in rights for non-human animals are an important section of the progressive movement, and the ideas I'm expressing here are relatively commonly accepted in that community.

Are you really one of those people who believe such crazy ideas? It's insane that people would give more rights to animals than protect those of their fellow humans.

Are you implying it's insane to believe that humans are simply animals?

Im not agreeing with Mets here, but your retort seems... a bit hypocritical. I know you get upset very quickly when someone makes offensive remarks about your beliefs.

Metsfanmax wrote:Ignore what TGD says; those who believe in rights for non-human animals are an important section of the progressive movement, and the ideas I'm expressing here are relatively commonly accepted in that community.

Are you really one of those people who believe such crazy ideas? It's insane that people would give more rights to animals than protect those of their fellow humans.

I do not know who you have in mind, but I do not associate myself with groups that intend to preserve non-human animal life above human life (if any such groups do exist).

Briefly stated, the principle I advocate is that the termination of an irreplaceable life (that is, an entity which has some non-trivial measure of intelligence or consciousness) is rarely justified except in the normal cases we are familiar with (e.g. self defense). The termination of a replaceable organism is justified when there is a compelling interest to do so, that is, when it will result in some net good. Any particular fetus has no memories, no particular intelligence to speak of, and no degree of self-awareness, and so it is a replaceable entity (insofar as society as concerned). As a result, if the mother of the fetus decides that it is in her best interest to terminate a pregnancy, then it necessarily is in the best interests of society (if we believe in achieving the greatest good, in general). Society has no particular stake in this question; one fetus is just as good as another (unless you have some specific tie to the family of the fetus in question).

It is false to characterize my position as granting more rights to non-human animals than to humans.

TGD wrote:Abortion is a hot button issue 30+ years after Roe v. Wade because it is has political clout. There really is no other reason. The Repocrats can scare their constituencies with "more abortions" or "no abortions" and get them out to vote. Metsfanmax is merely regurgitating the Democrat side of that coin. Abortions are legal in most states only because of the Roe v. Wade decision, which determined that the right to privacy overrode a compelling state interest only up until viability. To suggest there are any other reasons why abortion is legal in most states is absurd. Abortions are not legal because the fetus is not intelligent or because the fetus cannot live on its own.

You may have misunderstood my post. I was not trying to phenomenologically explain U.S. abortion law or defend it morally. I was presenting my individual thinking on the ethical topic of abortion.

Metsfanmax wrote:You may have misunderstood my post. I was not trying to phenomenologically explain U.S. abortion law or defend it morally. I was presenting my individual thinking on the ethical topic of abortion.

Ah, that's a completely separate issue. Legally/constitutionally/politically, I'm pro choice because of the Roe v. Wade decision. Personally I'm vehemently against abortion unless it's to save the life of the mother, in accordance with my religion. I will not foist my personal opinions on you or try to convince you (or federal and state governments and courts) that the Roman Catholic views on abortion are correct, so I won't stand in your way in this thread.

Metsfanmax wrote:You may have misunderstood my post. I was not trying to phenomenologically explain U.S. abortion law or defend it morally. I was presenting my individual thinking on the ethical topic of abortion.

Ah, that's a completely separate issue. Legally/constitutionally/politically, I'm pro choice because of the Roe v. Wade decision. Personally I'm vehemently against abortion unless it's to save the life of the mother, in accordance with my religion. I will not foist my personal opinions on you or try to convince you (or federal and state governments and courts) that the Roman Catholic views on abortion are correct, so I won't stand in your way in this thread.

Well, it may be an interesting discussion to have, but it's not for this thread in any case. Although, things rarely ever stay on topic for long in this forum.

thegreekdog wrote:I have no problem with your critique of Romney. It's valid. Your seemingly blind support of Obama is staggering.

I'm not blind. Obama isn't the one who claimed a non-existent analysis proved he'd create a specific number (12 million) of jobs.

Obama said all along he'd have to spend a lot to help us weather the storm, and it would be painful, and since the storm didn't happen overnight and took longer than 4 years to build, I didn't expect him to bippity-boppity-boo miracles for us; but I did hope Congress would give his plan a try for a while.

Obama's "plan" is simply stated: Increase taxes on businesses that send jobs overseas; ask those who can afford more to pay more with our country and its people hurting so much; and give tax incentives to companies that will create jobs within the United States.

MegaProphet wrote:Another thing to consider is that abortion isn't just a social issue it can also be an economic issue.

You're right, it can, and I'm sure there are a few pro-abortionists who support abortion because of economics. The thing is, not all pro-choicers are pro-abortion.

I'm pro-choice; doesn't mean I recommend a woman have an abortion. It means, I think that it's her body, her choice, one I hope she makes with whatever spiritual guidance she relies on, and I think it should remain her body, her choice, until the time science can remove the zygote at conception and grow it elsewhere if she doesn't want to do it for whatever reason she doesn't want to do it - and I guarantee you, each woman has a different set of reasons for making whatever choices she makes.

stahrgazer wrote:I'm not blind. Obama isn't the one who claimed a non-existent analysis proved he'd create a specific number (12 million) of jobs.

Obama said all along he'd have to spend a lot to help us weather the storm, and it would be painful, and since the storm didn't happen overnight and took longer than 4 years to build, I didn't expect him to bippity-boppity-boo miracles for us; but I did hope Congress would give his plan a try for a while.

Obama's "plan" is simply stated: Increase taxes on businesses that send jobs overseas; ask those who can afford more to pay more with our country and its people hurting so much; and give tax incentives to companies that will create jobs within the United States.

First of all, twelve million jobs will likely be created no matter who is president (see Bloomberg Business from this week).

Second, I don't need numbers to see logic. Both presidential candidates' tax plans made sense to me... a tax attorney. Mitt Romney's plan was to remove various deductions, credits, and other tax benefits given to corporations and the wealthy. Barack Obama's plan was to raise tax rates on the "wealthy." You cannot increase taxes on those businesses that send jobs overseas; there is no tax credit or deduction that can be eliminated.

And there is the problem. Obama was successful from a rhetoric perspective. Voters didn't care about facts or analysis, they just took what the president had to give at face value. And that includes. I'm a tax attorney and I'm telling you that both plans made sense fiscally and did not provide any details. I reviewed both budget plans, no details were given. I'm not the one suggesting that Obama had details and Romney didn't. You have the burden of proving that to me and, thus far, you have not. Merely regurgitating rhetoric you heard on the radio or TV doesn't do it for me. Sorry.

stahrgazer wrote:I'm not blind. Obama isn't the one who claimed a non-existent analysis proved he'd create a specific number (12 million) of jobs.

Obama said all along he'd have to spend a lot to help us weather the storm, and it would be painful, and since the storm didn't happen overnight and took longer than 4 years to build, I didn't expect him to bippity-boppity-boo miracles for us; but I did hope Congress would give his plan a try for a while.

Obama's "plan" is simply stated: Increase taxes on businesses that send jobs overseas; ask those who can afford more to pay more with our country and its people hurting so much; and give tax incentives to companies that will create jobs within the United States.

First of all, twelve million jobs will likely be created no matter who is president (see Bloomberg Business from this week).

Second, I don't need numbers to see logic. Both presidential candidates' tax plans made sense to me... a tax attorney. Mitt Romney's plan was to remove various deductions, credits, and other tax benefits given to corporations and the wealthy. Barack Obama's plan was to raise tax rates on the "wealthy." You cannot increase taxes on those businesses that send jobs overseas; there is no tax credit or deduction that can be eliminated.

And there is the problem. Obama was successful from a rhetoric perspective. Voters didn't care about facts or analysis, they just took what the president had to give at face value. And that includes. I'm a tax attorney and I'm telling you that both plans made sense fiscally and did not provide any details. I reviewed both budget plans, no details were given. I'm not the one suggesting that Obama had details and Romney didn't. You have the burden of proving that to me and, thus far, you have not. Merely regurgitating rhetoric you heard on the radio or TV doesn't do it for me. Sorry.

stahrgazer wrote:I'm not blind. Obama isn't the one who claimed a non-existent analysis proved he'd create a specific number (12 million) of jobs.

Obama said all along he'd have to spend a lot to help us weather the storm, and it would be painful, and since the storm didn't happen overnight and took longer than 4 years to build, I didn't expect him to bippity-boppity-boo miracles for us; but I did hope Congress would give his plan a try for a while.

Obama's "plan" is simply stated: Increase taxes on businesses that send jobs overseas; ask those who can afford more to pay more with our country and its people hurting so much; and give tax incentives to companies that will create jobs within the United States.

First of all, twelve million jobs will likely be created no matter who is president (see Bloomberg Business from this week).

Second, I don't need numbers to see logic. Both presidential candidates' tax plans made sense to me... a tax attorney. Mitt Romney's plan was to remove various deductions, credits, and other tax benefits given to corporations and the wealthy. Barack Obama's plan was to raise tax rates on the "wealthy." You cannot increase taxes on those businesses that send jobs overseas; there is no tax credit or deduction that can be eliminated.

And there is the problem. Obama was successful from a rhetoric perspective. Voters didn't care about facts or analysis, they just took what the president had to give at face value. And that includes. I'm a tax attorney and I'm telling you that both plans made sense fiscally and did not provide any details. I reviewed both budget plans, no details were given. I'm not the one suggesting that Obama had details and Romney didn't. You have the burden of proving that to me and, thus far, you have not. Merely regurgitating rhetoric you heard on the radio or TV doesn't do it for me. Sorry.

Wasn't part of Romney's problem that he was vague about what he would cut? Surely part of his problem was that his plan's details didn't amount to much more than, as you say "various deductions, credits, and other tax benefits". I'm not sure that makes sense fiscally (I'm not a tax attorney) without details.